Can anyone explain the logic behind billing wounded soldiers for lost or damaged equipment?

Question

I would really like to understand the justification for something like this and if it is something that has happened in past wars. When we hear stories of hundreds of millions of dollars being lost, billing a wounded soldier for $700 makes no sense.
I've included one link about one story, but it's hardly unique.

http://kdka.com/national/topstories_story_205132205.html

Thanks oldhippypaul. I was hoping to get input from someone in the military. My take on it is if someone is rotated back home and they're missing some gear then billing them might be reasonable. However of someone is wounded so badly that they have to be taken away from their unit or even sent back to the states for treatement, then they should get a pass on any lost equipment.

Vladoviking has a valid point. The soldier in my original link wasn't wounded. However there have been instances of wounded soldiers receiving bills.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/7473/Wounded_soldier_forced_to_pay_for_blood_soaked_kevlar_vest_which_was_destroyed

Answer 1

If soldier is injured then the chain of command must inventory the soldier's personal and government property.

The inventory of government property is checked against the records of what he was issued and an investigation is conducted to account for any discrepancies.

If the loss of the equipment can be identified to have been a consequence of combat (or conditions beyond the soldier's control) then the soldier is not considered to be responsible for the loss.

Now if the items that were damaged or lost are not things that it would be reasonable that he had in his possession at the time he was wounded (for example the refrigerator in his room) then the soldier can be held responsible for its loss.

There have been instances where sloppy/lazy supply sergeants have charged the soldier for the lost equipment simply because that required less paperwork than it would have taken to write it off as a 'combat loss.' Generally when this happens the soldier's commander gets in a lot of trouble for not properly supervising that supply sergeant.

Answer 2

I dont see anything in your source that says anything about wounded. Nor any claim that it was lost or damaged in the line of duty. Usually its up to the serviceman to report the loss and a reason why If he dosn't his superiors have nothing to work with other than his issue sheet he signed out the gear with. I'm making no claim as to right or wrong only showing example of how its a little more complicated than what this News blurb would have it appear Ya Ive payed for lost gear they eventually have the IRS garnish your return if neccesary.
Am I complaining? No I lost it all by myself.


I see your second source but it makes point of individual human error or neglegence as to the cause. Not a service wide disregard for its members.
Personally Ida sat my a---- for the couple months it took,Lt pay aint all that bad.

I rather like M1A1's explanation.

And lastly alot of these issues probably get rectified but thats old news to the Media so they wont report that.

Answer 3

There's no civilian logic behind it, the military tries to suck money out of as many people as possible. I don't understand it myself, but I have seen many cases in the 6 years I've been in the national guard of this type of thing happening and it sickens me that the military does that. I work in supply for my unit full time now and it hasn't happened in our unit yet, as it seems that everyone always has extra stuff to cover for "missing" items when the worst happens to one of our soldiers. Everyone in my unit pitches in and we manage to be able to find a replacement item.

The issue is that the military tries to make people believe that they have a very tight control over equipment which they really don't have, as there's so much equipment that changes hands every day that the military has a huge list of "property book" items that come up mission on a hourly basis. Usually due to the fact that one office don't have a clue what the office across the hall is doing. Plus the military seems to loose important paperwork constantly but only when it pertains to promotions, and property turn in sheets.

Answer 4

This is of course not right but it has always been a side effect of the effort to keep up with military property. For every piece of gear there is someone who has signed for it. A lot of times they don't even know that they have signed for the stuff. The bean counters have to make the books balance. So they end up doing stuff like this. In most cases a phone call or a letter will take care of it. Contacting your old CO can also help. I don't know anyway to get away from things like this happening once in a while. You have to have a system of keeping up with stuff. They just need to be more flexible about it. Having someone fall on them from a great height usually fixes it all up.

Answer 5

It is messed up that some people get billed for their equipment when injured, but not all do. I would say that everyone I know that got injured while we where over there, (we got back last december and were there for 16 months) none of them have had to pay for anything. Body armor ripped up, damaged rifles, cracked helmets, all replaced. And even if you are not injured and you re-deploy back to your duty station stateside, you have a certain timeframe that you can claim all of the gear you lost (as long as its not sensitive material) as a combat loss. Its scewed up if anyone should have to pay for things if they had no control over losing something.

Answer 6

I never heard of that before, but it doesn't surprise me very much.

I have never been in the military, but I do work for a government bureacracy (state mental health) and I have seen some pretty illogical stuff--like refusing to pay for patients' medications but spending thousands on new wallpaper and furniture so the hospital looks nice when the inspector comes.

I was expected to get old files from a building that was contaminated with lead and asbestos--the administrators branded me as a trouble maker when I filed a complaint about that. It took years to get them to actually do anything about it.

Answer 7

it would all depend on the what happened to the equipment. if it was lost or damaged in combat then they should have wrote it off as a loss which it is. if however it was lost or damaged through carelessness then i say to bad pay up. you are responsible and sign your equipment out, so take care of it.

Answer 8

If it's lost through negligence than yes, the servicemember should have to pay for it.

However, if the body armor is damaged in combat, or if you have to cut it off of a wounded soldier to save their life, making them pay for it is just keeping the fine tradition of the US giving its veterans the shaft.

Answer 9

Because we have politicians rather than military professionals running the military services.

Answer 10

This is the first time I've heard of this, but if it's true then it's wrong on so many levels. But our government hardly does anything that makes sense.